context safety score
A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) for a domain presenting as fco.gov.uk (UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office). A legitimate UK government domain would have a valid TLS certificate. This strongly suggests the site is not the real fco.gov.uk, and any HTTP traffic may be intercepted or redirected to a malicious destination. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
brand impersonation
The domain fco.gov.uk presents as the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, a high-value government brand. However, TLS is completely broken (no valid certificate, no SAN match, connection failed), which is inconsistent with any legitimate UK government web property. This pattern is consistent with a typosquat or impersonation site targeting users expecting an authoritative government resource. (location: metadata.json: domain=fco.gov.uk, tls fully invalid)
phishing
Combination of government brand (fco.gov.uk) with completely failed TLS (connected=false, cert_valid=false) and empty page content is a known phishing pattern: the domain harvests trust from the brand name while the actual page content may be served dynamically or the scan-time page was intentionally blank to evade detection. The domain age of 14833 days may reflect the legitimate domain being reused or spoofed. (location: metadata.json, page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/fco.gov.ukCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
fco.gov.uk currently scores 49/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium confidence. The goal is to protect agents from high-risk context before they act on it. Treat this as a decision signal: higher scores suggest lower observed risk, while lower scores mean you should add review or block this domain.
Use the score as a policy threshold: 80–100 is safe, 50–79 is caution, 20–49 is suspicious, and 0–19 is dangerous. Teams often auto-allow safe, require human review for caution/suspicious, and block dangerous.
brin evaluates four dimensions: identity (source trust), behavior (runtime patterns), content (malicious instructions), and graph (relationship risk). Analysis runs in tiers: static signals, deterministic pattern checks, then AI semantic analysis when needed.
Identity checks source trust, behavior checks unusual runtime patterns, content checks for malicious instructions, and graph checks risky relationships to other entities. Looking at sub-scores helps you understand why an entity passed or failed.
brin performs risk assessments on external context before it reaches an AI agent. It scores that context for threats like prompt injection, hijacking, credential harvesting, and supply chain attacks, so teams can decide whether to block, review, or proceed safely.
No. A safe verdict means no significant risk signals were detected in this scan. It is not a formal guarantee; assessments are automated and point-in-time, so combine scores with your own controls and periodic re-checks.
Re-check before high-impact actions such as installs, upgrades, connecting MCP servers, executing remote code, or granting secrets. Use the API in CI or runtime gates so decisions are based on the latest scan.
Learn more in threat detection docs, how scoring works, and the API overview.
Assessments are automated and may contain errors. Findings are risk indicators, not confirmed threats. This is a point-in-time assessment; security posture can change.
integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.